Book: 'Health and Health Care Inequities' i

I didn't attend online the book launch for Health and Health Care Inequities. It appeared to be in the early hours for the UK. Making good progress on a week's break last month, upon return, a presentation and some writing proved a distraction. I've picked it up again, a task that was smooth and straightforward such is the style and writing. H&HCI is - as expected - academic. The statistics, politics and government publications come thick and fast. But they literally do count here.

Borras and the Fernwood are based in Canada. The focus of Borras's thesis is then Canadian politics, economics, society, social and cultural challenges, poverty, exclusion, global standing, statistics and reporting (and more) are all relevant globally. Especially as COVID, climate change, and the current state (or stasis?) of global health provision attests. The book is unashamably Marxist, but not heavy with it. If that makes sense. I was drawn to the publisher too. Well: critical books for critical thinkers; how could I resist!
The influence of Marx and Marxism on the 20th century is profound and full of contradictions. There's the history, and its lessons of Marxism as a political ideology and the geopolitical exemplars that have given Marxism a 'bad' name. To the extent that 'socialism' is also tainted. What other term can be applied that captures 'Marxism', Marxist thought and its relevance today? And that is, relevance in terms of health, health care and social care inequities? 'Struggle' seems utterly inadequate amid current news?

Amidst the history of various revolutions, some arguably on-going, fizzled out, on life support ...? it is, it seems, capitalism that goes marching on. To keep time, the metronome is the tick of central processing unit, and now the graphics 'pu' and tensor; for we live in the 'information age'. I've been keeping notes, but will begin with some reading today, which is an excellent point to 'healthcare professionals', obsessed as we are, with evidence.

'I often go back to Carol Weiss. Years ago, she said three things that go into the decision making ... information, ideology, and interest. And then she went on to say, don't for one moment think that information can trump either ideology or interest. So if you look at the whole climate debate right now, it's actually an ideological debate, The right-wing, the Republicans, some Conservatives here, their rejection of the evidence has nothing to do with the evidence. It's really an ideology ... our group thinks this way, and we are aligned with the fossil fuel industry because they're rich and powerful. Our whole system is based on cheap energy. And so we have to keep going kind of thing. And bugger the evidence.

And that second one, which is actually very closely related to that, is interest. By interest, she meant power and wealth and stakeholders. So, who gets the policy they want? The people who have the money and power to influence it. So, the fossil fuel industry is very powerful ... And so, no matter what the evidence is, they have a financial interest in not having any controls upon them having the minimum of controls. And so, that will triumph usually. So, you put together ideology and interest, and it will almost always overcome evidence or information.' p.78.

More to follow and a return here is essential.

Weiss, C.H. (1983). Ideology, Interests, and Information. In: Callahan, D., Jennings, B. (eds) Ethics, The Social Sciences, and Policy Analysis. The Hastings Center Series in Ethics. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-7015-4_9

Arnel M. Borras. (2025) Health and Health Care Inequities - A Critical Political Economy Perspective. Fernwood Publishing.

See also: Post ii : Post iii : Post iv : Post v (to follow)